IIRC that's pretty much the case. In fact as well as the two transverse polarisations and the longitudinal polarisation, virtual photons can also be scalar (if you imagine the polarisation as a vector, the transverse polarisations are in the x, and y directions, the longitudinal polarisation is in the z direction, and the scalar one is polarised in the t direction, if that makes sense .)

I've been looking for an on-line text that deals with this (and somewhat more elegantly than I, particularly as I'm a little rusty ), and the best page that I have found is this one which more or less covers the same stuff as Mandl and Shaw. (If you want another book on QFT that takes a different approach, I'd recommend Quantum and Statistical Field Theory by Michel Le Bellac, which motivates a lot of the formalism, including the RG, from a statistical physics starting point.)

Yup, it's deja vu all over again.
(Many thanks to Yogi Berra for that one.)

I must apologise BA for your having to intervene in this thread on two occasions now, but I assure you that it is not because of anything of my doing (or ‘not doing’ as the case may be).
I believe that This will answer your query in full and brings me up to date in answering all points regarding Tired Light on this thread.
The problem has been that this particular point regarding a conservation of energy and momentum budget is not directly related to my theory. We know that electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate in a direction perpendicular to that in which the wave travels and then the electron re-radiates this energy. I assume this result and use it. To question this result is to question not my theory but the theory of transmission of light itself.
However, with the above reference I believe that everything is now in order. In my theory I say that in IG space, these electrons recoil as well as oscillate and this results in the redshift.
Once again, apologies for your being troubled,
Cheers,
Lyndon

emphasis mine...

HUH???? Maybe I'm reading the BA wrong but it seems like that is exactly what he is talking about.

At the very least, take responsibility for your own words (or lack, thereof)...

edited to add...

I just noticed this...
You're not apologizing for what you have posted or not posted, you're "apologizing" for the BA being "troubled". [-X :roll:

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Wrong.
That link deals with a charged particle interacting with "a linearly polarized plane wave".
Your "theory" is based on an fictional mechanism for the scattering of a free electron and a single photon.
Let me remind you again that a single photon is not a macroscopic electromagnetic wave.


Hogwash.
The basic mechanism on your "theory" is a scattering event: conservation of both momentum and energy are the most relevant things you have to deal with.

Hogwash.
We question your application of this result to your "theory".
From the start your "theory" begins with a single scattering event between a single photon and a single free electron.
If you think you can apply results obtained for a macroscopic EM wave, you are only proving your ignorance in the matter.


Which is irrelevant to your "theory"...

And you believe wrong.
How about providing some evidence?

You say, but you do not prove.

So, how about providing your full calculations for the scattering between a photon and a free electron, like the BA asked?
The link you provided is not that calculation.


EDIT to fix a tag and spelling.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Not even close. You are being asked to answer some excruciatingly simple questions about YOUR interaction. Citations to other pages which do not describe your interaction are yet another irrelevant distraction; the very thing the BA is complaining about.

This citation is to a page about oscillations of an electron in an oscillating field. That is completely irrelevant to your alleged absorption reaction, in which a photon is absorbed. When the photon is absorbed, its oscillating fields are GONE. This has been pointed out before, and you've merely ignored it.

Another discrepancy is the frequency of oscillation while the photon is still engaged in the interaction is around 600 Terahertz; whereas you've previously invoked plasma oscillations of around 6 Hz or so. Which is it? Each interaction involves errors in basic physics. In the one case confusing motions of one electron with density waves in a whole plasma; and in the other case confusing oscillations driven while the electromagnetic wave is present with effects remaining after absorption of the wave.

And in none of these red herrings do we EVER get a simple balanced energy momentum budget for the Lyndon effect.

Your absorption reaction, as described in your paper, is a violation of the conservation laws of energy and momentum. You are being asked to give a balanced energy momentum budget, in which energy and momentum in states before and after the alleged photon absorption are quantified and shown to be in balance.

I sympathize to some extent, because the question is impossible to answer. Photo absorption by electrons as you describe it is well known to be impossible due to inevitable violations of energy momentum conservation.

Cheers -- Sylas

Sylas wrote

Not even close? It is spot on. What is light if it is not an oscillating field? The first line on page one tells you
It also states that it will ignore the recoil, i don't and get the redshift.
The paper tells you how a wave with longitudinal momentum can give the particle transverse momentum, something you said was impossible.

It then goes on , on page 6, to say that the oscillating electron radiates the energy and states:
the mechanical energy of the charge must be decreasing
That is it re-emits the energy absorbed.

Wrong yet again. Have you read any of my posts? Do you not have resonance in Australia?
The natural frequency of oscillation of an electron in IG space is 6Hz. If a photon were to come in with this freqency the electron will be set into oscillation, resonance will take place and the whole of the plasma will be set into oscillation. The energy will be dispersed and not given back in a single photon. However the frequencies involved in redshift are far higher than this so this situation does not apply.
For frequencies of light far higher than 6 Hz ie 6x10^14Hz (typical) resonance does not occur. The energy is retained by that electron and not dispersed within the plasma. It is re-radiated as a single photon.

What happens is described in the paper cited above. The only problem left is for yourself and others to listen. This is what happens in life, in experiment in the laboratory and yet you insist that it cannot happen. I have given you the maths and the observations. QED.


No Sylas, it is I who sympathize with you. For most of these pages you have insisted that a photon with longitudinal momentum cannot give transverse momentum to an electron. I have shown you to be wrong.
In fact, I like others have lost patience with both yours and Papageno's complaints. You have had the maths you were wrong.
All that is left is for yourself and Papageno to put fingers to the keyboard and type an apology,
Lyndon you were correct , we were wrong.
I won't hold my breath.
However, as far as I am concerned this point is now finished. I have given ample proof. Those of you who are in denial can ignore it if you wish but the Tired Light theory stands.
Cheers,
Lyndon

The page you are talking about has an electron oscillating IN AN oscillating field. There's no problem with that at all.

But it's IS NOT your model. Your model has a photon ABSORBED. It's GONE. There is NO OSCILLATING ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ANYMORE: just an electron.

And despite being asked endlessly, you STILL can't give a simple energy momentum balance for this alleged absorption. Sheesh!

YOUR photo absorption reaction starts with a photon, and an electron at rest. Your then absorb the photon. Quit stalling and describe the energy momentum budget for YOUR reaction, in which the photon is ABSORBED.

Remember, ABSORBED means that the photon NO LONGER EXISTS. The photon is an oscillating electromagnetic field; but its gone, mate.

In real physics, as opposed to your nonsense, an electron-photon interaction results in the electron being fired off at an angle BECAUSE the impulse is transverse, and the photon gets fired off at an angle as well -- scattered. The cited page describes how the motion of the electron is balanced by the additional fields involved; but YOUR model ignores this entirely, because you absorb the photon, you DONT' scatter it.

So cut it out with talking about OTHER reactions, and give a simple quantified energy momentum budget for YOUR reaction. Not other reactions; YOUR alleged photon absorption reaction. Energy and momentum before absorption, and then energy and momentum after absorption. As long as you continue to stall about doing this, you are just spouting red herrings, and failing to describe YOUR reaction!

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. In real physics, a photon gets absorbed by an atom; not an electron alone. The atom has positive charges. The transverse motions move one in one direction, and the other in a different direction. They get pushed apart, which corresponds to a jump in energy levels. All the momentum gets absorbed as the net motion of the atom with the same momentum as absored photon. So yes OF COURSE the momentum gets absorbed in the same direction of the photon. That is trivial high school physics! Momentum MUST be conserved. How the plague can you consider the photon being absorbed by an electron when you KNOW that the electron moves sideways? The MEANS that the photon HAS to scatter in the opposite direction to balance momentum. Absorption is totally impossible.

Enough Sylas,
You have had your answer many times over. A wave is a stream of photons. The paper applies.
Also
Plasma has positive charges. electrons in plasma oscillate in the same way.
You have had valid answers on this point time and time again but you ignore them. Tired Light stands.
And that really is my final word on this

But I haven't had my answer. A ballanced energy analysis. Let's see it. I don't think you can, from what I've seen. Either that or you know it doesn't ballance and are turning a blind eye to it in order to hold on to your pet theory.
Let's see it.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Proudly spoken like a someone who has no clue on how to produce the engergy-momentum balance for the process he claims works. As I've said before, the fact that you can't produce such a balance speaks volumes on how you process doesn't work. If it did work, you would have produced such a balance by now, just to show how your process worked and show us wrong.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Lyndon is also once again confusing a single photon interacting with an electron with a plane wave (a classical approximation of many photons) interacting with an electron.

I'd draw your attention in particular to equation 19 from the paper Lyndon mentioned, where we find the momentum imparted to the EM wave through the interaction. Notice that it's in the x-direction, opposite the motion of the electron, while the plane wave is initially travelling in the z-direction. That is, the interaction imparts a transverse momentum on the photons making up the wave to balance the transverse momentum imparted to the electron, so they're scattered from the original direction. Which of course is what we've been saying all along, that to impart momentum and energy to an electron, the photon can't continue to travel in the same direction.

I may have missed the post were you do the same calculation and include the recoil.
In previous posts you seemed to be bringing in the rest of the plasma in an attempt to balance the budgets. Now it seems that the rest of the plasma plays no part in the fundamental interaction (other than to add to the number of scattering events). So, again, how do you balance the energy and momenta of the electron and photon coming in, and the electron and photon coming out?

It must be really frustrating for you to discuss physics with somebody who actually understands it.


Where is your full calculation in support of your theory?
Or are you still convinced that a single photon and a macroscopic EM wave are the same thing?


I sent a PM to the BA: let's see if he agrees with you.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Lyndon's tired light model as described in his preprint paper works as follows:

• A photon is absorbed by an electron initially at rest, giving the electron a boost in velocity.
• The electron is brought to rest again.
• The electron emits a red-shifted photon, along the line of the original photon.
• The recoiling electron is brought to rest again.
• The electron is brought to rest by interactions within the plasma, and these decelerations emit CMB radiation.

This is physically impossible. Electrons don't absorb photons unless they are part of an atom. A very easy proof of impossibility is energy momentum analysis; and this is why Lyndon has been asked repeatedly for an energy momentum analysis for his reaction. It is also why he has repeatedly refused to supply one. -- he can't; and above all he can't admit that he can't.

Instead, we get a series of red herrings. The latest red herring involves reference to a paper that gives an analysis for motions of a charged particle in an electromagnetic wave. Such a wave corresponds to a stream of photons; so it's got nothing to do with Lyndon's reaction. The paper refers to oscillations only exist while a whole stream of photons is passing through to maintain the oscillations; and this has nothing whatsoever to do with finding a place for the missing energy in Lyndon's photon absorption reaction.

This paper has no absorption; no redshift; no plasma. Lyndon gives no quantified connection to his photon absorption. He gives no energy momentum balance in which we can see where the energy of an absorbed photon ends up. He has no answers; only red herrings with yet another paper he does not understand.

But just for the sheer humour of it; let's plug in some numbers anyway. It's a good exercise to get a feel for the new bit of physics Lyndon is making a hash of. Perhaps we can make a party game around how many orders of magnitude there are in Lyndon's errors this time.

Equation (7) of the paper allows us to infer a peak momentum "p" for the electron oscillating in a passing wave as being E0.e/ω, where E0 is the field strength of the electromagnetic wave, e is the charge on the electron, and ω = 2*π*c/λ is the angular frequency of the wave in rad/sec.

The energy of oscillation will be p^2/2.m, where p is this maximum momentum, so the energy of the oscillating electron is E0^2.e^2/2.m.ω^2

Lyndon's paper has a photon being absorbed, and this is the energy Lyndon has never accounted properly. We'll plug this in and see what it means for oscillations of an electron in an electromagnetic wave to have this much energy.

Energy = h.c/λ = E0^2.e^2.λ^2/8.π^2.m.c^2
Therefore
E0^2 = 8.π^2.m.h.c^3/λ^3.e^2
Plug in the wavelength λ = 500 nm, and we can get
E0 = 2.00e10 J/C

This is the peak field strength of the electromagnetic wave with wavelength 500 nm required to give the electron oscillations with energy equivalent to one photon; the missing energy that Lyndon still has to quantify.

Now the irradiance of an electromagnetic wave (power per unit area) is
I = c.ε.E0^2/2 = 5.31e17 Joules/m^2/sec
The constant ε is permittivity, which is 8.85e-12 Farads/meter. Since the energy of a photon is 3.97e-19 J, we require a flux of
1.34e36 photons per meter squared per second to maintain this oscillation.

That, my friends, is a big number. For comparison, starlight is roughly 10^10 photons/m^2/s, and daylight about 10^18 photons/m^2/s. It is, in fact, so big that the weak wave approximations used in the cited paper are not valid.

This rather suggests Lyndon will never try to give a balanced energy momentum budget based on the actual numbers or formulae of the cited paper. He will continue to pretend that just tossing off the reference to a different reaction stands as an adequate answer to the requests for energy momentum budgets of his photon absorption reaction.

I would very much appreciate anyone with a calculator taking the time to check my figures for me. But I think they are in the right ball park. As a double check for myself, I scaled the numbers down for dimensions roughly corresponding to a single photon, and ended up within an order of magnitude or so of the momentum transferred to an electron in Compton scattering.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Added in edit. I have used unicode for the Greek letter pi, and it ends up looking a lot like lower case N ("n") in my browser. I have no variable "n" in the above analysis, and pi appears as "π".

Just curious who those "others" are? [-X So far the only one not backing up his physics with real maths has been you. I know it stings to have your theory ripped to shreds, but this is a point when real scientists go back and re-examine their work. It's also where they would offer some retraction. Going back to the drawing board isn't the end of the world, just a point to get a better understanding and perhaps a point to get a theory that actually works.

Sorry Lyndon, I think you're the only one supporting your theory.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

After 25 pages, I've had enough.

As others have pointed out, the link lyndonashmore provided is not the same thing he is claiming. A single photon is very different than a classical plane wave.

Somehow or another, I missed that this whole discussion is about tired light. I guess I was bogged down in the details. But if I had noticed that earlier, I would have made this call a long time ago: tired light is dead wrong. It has to be; it cannot account for time dilation of supernova light curves, which are known to exist and which follow the standard redshift calculations. See here.

Anyway, I asked lyndonashmore a direct question, and in the end he did not answer it. As is my wont with ATM proponents, I gave him many, many chances and plenty of time to make his case, and yet he still failed to do so.

So: enough. Banned. Locked.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com